2 total
The court denied the plaintiff's request to extend deadlines for an out-of-time discovery motion.
The plaintiff sought an extension of the set down deadline and directions on scheduling a motion to compel the defendant to produce additional documents, arguing these were required by a prior production order.
The court found the plaintiff's motion was out of time, as the parties had agreed to a timetable for all pre-trial motions, and the plaintiff had not acted within those deadlines.
The court emphasized the importance of case management and procedural fairness, but held that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to bring the motion and declined to grant leave for it to proceed.
The court settled an order following a judge's retirement by strictly adhering to the original written reasons rather than the parties' subsequent agreement.
The court was asked to settle the wording of a formal order after the associate judge who made the underlying discovery ruling had retired.
The dispute arose because the parties’ previously agreed draft order did not match the wording of the original reasons, and the registrar refused to sign it.
The court held that in settling the order, it could not revisit the merits, infer a different intention, or implement the parties’ own understanding of what had been meant; it had to ensure the order tracked the reasons as written.
The court therefore signed the plaintiff’s revised draft order with some clarifying amendments and made no order as to costs of the settling process.
